Sebastian Vahl <ml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > We (KDE-SIG) want to include one of these partitionin tools. > qtparted would be the best choice because it is qt. But personally I've > only used gparted the last time (years). For me it was working better. > > Also the described functionality differs: > gparted: http://gparted.sourceforge.net/features.php > qtparted: http://qtparted.sourceforge.net/features.en.html > > So the question here is: Are there good reasons for choosing qtparted > instead of gparted? Or is gtparted equal in functionality? Recent experience of mine when I wanted to make room for a Linux install on a new Thinkpad with SATA drive: qtparted (from Knoppix 5.1) gave me an empty error box (e.g. without any error message) whenever I told it to resize the NTFS windows partition. gparted from an Ubuntu Live-CD I had lying around work flawlessly and looked generally much more polished and mature. -- Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bullshit nobody will read. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
